(11-11-2015 03:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I agree with Kitton...buy a decent "dumb" HDTV...and buy a Roku.

It makes no sense chasing technology by always getting the top shelf item...it'll be nothing special in 3 years.

I use my first generation HDTV. It has limited ports (1 HDMI) and no smart capabilities. Paid $700 dollars 10 years ago and its held up fine. Has a built in DVD player that is handy.

When smart TV capabilities and blu ray became the norm I added a desktop to the TV setup.

Dumb TV's are going by the way of the dinosaur though. It tempting to want to grab a 65 inch dumb TV for cheap before it goes extinct.

(11-11-2015 04:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:08 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 03:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 02:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well, you only pay once. They may make less money on OTA but looking at the numbers that people are dropping paid TV, OTA may be making a comeback although slowly.

Maybe.

But they only make advertising revenue on OTA content. Content that is distributed gets carriage or royalty fees, on top of advertising revenue (within the content).

That's why channels don't like OTA. They'd prefer to stop distributing their content to the stations.


OTA wouldn't be dead, in that case. But you wouldn't have national FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS content anymore. You'd just have whatever the stations could produce. Local news, perhaps local sports (high school, minor league), old movies and old shows, etc.

There are around 20-30M tv households who only get ota. Add to that the people who use an ota antenna instead of paying cable systems for locals... that's a decent number of viewers.

Yes, but how much money do they make by giving away the content? It's advertisers.

But advertisers aren't dumb. It's not just the ratings.

They know that someone who's cheap/poor enough to just have an antenna probably isn't going to buy the things they're advertising anyway.

Actually, I would guess cable stations charge higher advert rates because they have to. Making and producing original programming isn't cheap.

A lot of the new ota channels popping up are channels that have purchased the rights to old shows and package them as a theme (similar to tvland on cable). The content is already there, no need to produce programming.

I agree the cable model has more profit in it because of subscriber fees. But the ota model isn't going away any time soon.

Most shows, except for special events, draw well under 15m viewers. Having a base of up to 40m viewers (give or take) for ota stations is a good market space.

Sorry for confusion. I didn't mean to imply that OTA was going away entirely or that existing stations would be shutting down operations.

I think, exactly like you said, OTA is going to be mostly old shows and old movies and some stations (maybe most) will still produce local news and perhaps local high school/minor league sports. That's the kind of content that the stations are going to be able to produce, on their own (without huge bankrolls).

FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are eventually going to stop providing national content to these stations, and the stations will cease to be affiliated with these productions.

Those productions can get more money by having their content distributed on cable, satellite, internet, etc. than by broadcasting it OTA.

(11-11-2015 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:08 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 03:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe.

But they only make advertising revenue on OTA content. Content that is distributed gets carriage or royalty fees, on top of advertising revenue (within the content).

That's why channels don't like OTA. They'd prefer to stop distributing their content to the stations.


OTA wouldn't be dead, in that case. But you wouldn't have national FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS content anymore. You'd just have whatever the stations could produce. Local news, perhaps local sports (high school, minor league), old movies and old shows, etc.

There are around 20-30M tv households who only get ota. Add to that the people who use an ota antenna instead of paying cable systems for locals... that's a decent number of viewers.

Yes, but how much money do they make by giving away the content? It's advertisers.

But advertisers aren't dumb. It's not just the ratings.

They know that someone who's cheap/poor enough to just have an antenna probably isn't going to buy the things they're advertising anyway.

Actually, I would guess cable stations charge higher advert rates because they have to. Making and producing original programming isn't cheap.

A lot of the new ota channels popping up are channels that have purchased the rights to old shows and package them as a theme (similar to tvland on cable). The content is already there, no need to produce programming.

I agree the cable model has more profit in it because of subscriber fees. But the ota model isn't going away any time soon.

Most shows, except for special events, draw well under 15m viewers. Having a base of up to 40m viewers (give or take) for ota stations is a good market space.

Sorry for confusion. I didn't mean to imply that OTA was going away entirely or that existing stations would be shutting down operations.

I think, exactly like you said, OTA is going to be mostly old shows and old movies and some stations (maybe most) will still produce local news and perhaps local high school/minor league sports. That's the kind of content that the stations are going to be able to produce, on their own (without huge bankrolls).

FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are eventually going to stop providing national content to these stations, and the stations will cease to be affiliated with these productions.

Those productions can get more money by having their content distributed on cable, satellite, internet, etc. than by broadcasting it OTA.

I'm not sure I follow you. Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are already on cable/sat. There is a cap of about 90m homes they can reach that way. The only way to reach the other 20-30m is over-the-air.

If they go strictly cable/sat, they cut out about 1/3 of the homes they reach with their ad dollars (advertising revenue shrinks). Plus, I doubt the govt would allow them to leave that 20-30m people in the dark.

I get satellite tv and enjoy the channels. I get my locals and their sub-channels through rabbit ears. I can tell you that ALL the channels (cable, sat or ota) run the same commercials from the same companies. All the channels look and feel the same.

(11-11-2015 09:43 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:08 PM)Topkat Wrote:  There are around 20-30M tv households who only get ota. Add to that the people who use an ota antenna instead of paying cable systems for locals... that's a decent number of viewers.

Yes, but how much money do they make by giving away the content? It's advertisers.

But advertisers aren't dumb. It's not just the ratings.

They know that someone who's cheap/poor enough to just have an antenna probably isn't going to buy the things they're advertising anyway.

Actually, I would guess cable stations charge higher advert rates because they have to. Making and producing original programming isn't cheap.

A lot of the new ota channels popping up are channels that have purchased the rights to old shows and package them as a theme (similar to tvland on cable). The content is already there, no need to produce programming.

I agree the cable model has more profit in it because of subscriber fees. But the ota model isn't going away any time soon.

Most shows, except for special events, draw well under 15m viewers. Having a base of up to 40m viewers (give or take) for ota stations is a good market space.

Sorry for confusion. I didn't mean to imply that OTA was going away entirely or that existing stations would be shutting down operations.

I think, exactly like you said, OTA is going to be mostly old shows and old movies and some stations (maybe most) will still produce local news and perhaps local high school/minor league sports. That's the kind of content that the stations are going to be able to produce, on their own (without huge bankrolls).

FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are eventually going to stop providing national content to these stations, and the stations will cease to be affiliated with these productions.

Those productions can get more money by having their content distributed on cable, satellite, internet, etc. than by broadcasting it OTA.

I'm not sure I follow you. Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are already on cable/sat. There is a cap of about 90m homes they can reach that way. The only way to reach the other 20-30m is over-the-air.

If they go strictly cable/sat, they cut out about 1/3 of the homes they reach with their ad dollars (advertising revenue shrinks). Plus, I doubt the govt would allow them to leave that 20-30m people in the dark.

I get satellite tv and enjoy the channels. I get my locals and their sub-channels through rabbit ears. I can tell you that ALL the channels (cable, sat or ota) run the same commercials from the same companies. All the channels look and feel the same.

If money only came from advertising, you would be correct.

My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.


The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

The government no more cares that everyone with an antenna be able to watch Family Guy than they care that ESPN does not have an OTA signal.


Hopefully it's clear that there is a distinction between the national content that Fox, ABC, etc. produce, and then give to their affiliate stations to broadcast OTA, and those affiliate stations themselves that own and operation the OTA production.

(11-11-2015 10:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 09:43 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes, but how much money do they make by giving away the content? It's advertisers.

But advertisers aren't dumb. It's not just the ratings.

They know that someone who's cheap/poor enough to just have an antenna probably isn't going to buy the things they're advertising anyway.

Actually, I would guess cable stations charge higher advert rates because they have to. Making and producing original programming isn't cheap.

A lot of the new ota channels popping up are channels that have purchased the rights to old shows and package them as a theme (similar to tvland on cable). The content is already there, no need to produce programming.

I agree the cable model has more profit in it because of subscriber fees. But the ota model isn't going away any time soon.

Most shows, except for special events, draw well under 15m viewers. Having a base of up to 40m viewers (give or take) for ota stations is a good market space.

Sorry for confusion. I didn't mean to imply that OTA was going away entirely or that existing stations would be shutting down operations.

I think, exactly like you said, OTA is going to be mostly old shows and old movies and some stations (maybe most) will still produce local news and perhaps local high school/minor league sports. That's the kind of content that the stations are going to be able to produce, on their own (without huge bankrolls).

FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are eventually going to stop providing national content to these stations, and the stations will cease to be affiliated with these productions.

Those productions can get more money by having their content distributed on cable, satellite, internet, etc. than by broadcasting it OTA.

I'm not sure I follow you. Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are already on cable/sat. There is a cap of about 90m homes they can reach that way. The only way to reach the other 20-30m is over-the-air.

If they go strictly cable/sat, they cut out about 1/3 of the homes they reach with their ad dollars (advertising revenue shrinks). Plus, I doubt the govt would allow them to leave that 20-30m people in the dark.

I get satellite tv and enjoy the channels. I get my locals and their sub-channels through rabbit ears. I can tell you that ALL the channels (cable, sat or ota) run the same commercials from the same companies. All the channels look and feel the same.

If money only came from advertising, you would be correct.

My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.

The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

The government no more cares that everyone with an antenna be able to watch Family Guy than they care that ESPN does not have an OTA signal.

Hopefully it's clear that there is a distinction between the national content that Fox, ABC, etc. produce, and then give to their affiliate stations to broadcast OTA, and those affiliate stations themselves that own and operation the OTA production.

I'm not sure you are clear in what you are trying to say.

From what I am able to piece together, you are trying to say the NATIONAL broadcast for Fox, ABC, etc. are going to the subscriber model, but the local affiliates in each city will still be ota (the affiliates broadcast the national feed or local programming).

Just so we can continue, is that what you are saying?

Also, the govt is bending over backwards to supply internet for everyone. You best believe they won't let those in need lose their big 4 nationals on ota tv.

Cable and satellite companies pay carriage fees to the local ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS stations in order to show their content. Those stations are actually the most popular stations on cable and they get paid. In the old days they did not get paid, but it changed about 10 years ago.

(11-11-2015 10:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.

But its not an increment of more money, since when they have reached those people over cable, then with the same programming costs they can get more revenue by also distributing OTA funded by ads.

Quote: The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

They care about some aspects of this, but not about whether or not some specific media company distributes content via some collection of OTA affiliates.

The traditional networks have multiple streams. They get ad revenue, limited carriage fees, they are selling online as pay to view (Apple and Google stores), selling to subscribers (multiple networks have ownership stake in Hulu, CBS has their own service), and then later selling to Netflix and Amazon in addition to the DVD sales. They are much more often producing their content so they get money all along the stream, plus export sales.

As for the idea that consumers without cable or satellite cannot afford the products being advertised, that's silly. McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Miller Lite are the very description of affordable consumer products.

(11-11-2015 10:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 09:43 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:53 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Actually, I would guess cable stations charge higher advert rates because they have to. Making and producing original programming isn't cheap.

A lot of the new ota channels popping up are channels that have purchased the rights to old shows and package them as a theme (similar to tvland on cable). The content is already there, no need to produce programming.

I agree the cable model has more profit in it because of subscriber fees. But the ota model isn't going away any time soon.

Most shows, except for special events, draw well under 15m viewers. Having a base of up to 40m viewers (give or take) for ota stations is a good market space.

Sorry for confusion. I didn't mean to imply that OTA was going away entirely or that existing stations would be shutting down operations.

I think, exactly like you said, OTA is going to be mostly old shows and old movies and some stations (maybe most) will still produce local news and perhaps local high school/minor league sports. That's the kind of content that the stations are going to be able to produce, on their own (without huge bankrolls).

FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are eventually going to stop providing national content to these stations, and the stations will cease to be affiliated with these productions.

Those productions can get more money by having their content distributed on cable, satellite, internet, etc. than by broadcasting it OTA.

I'm not sure I follow you. Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are already on cable/sat. There is a cap of about 90m homes they can reach that way. The only way to reach the other 20-30m is over-the-air.

If they go strictly cable/sat, they cut out about 1/3 of the homes they reach with their ad dollars (advertising revenue shrinks). Plus, I doubt the govt would allow them to leave that 20-30m people in the dark.

I get satellite tv and enjoy the channels. I get my locals and their sub-channels through rabbit ears. I can tell you that ALL the channels (cable, sat or ota) run the same commercials from the same companies. All the channels look and feel the same.

If money only came from advertising, you would be correct.

My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.

The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

The government no more cares that everyone with an antenna be able to watch Family Guy than they care that ESPN does not have an OTA signal.

Hopefully it's clear that there is a distinction between the national content that Fox, ABC, etc. produce, and then give to their affiliate stations to broadcast OTA, and those affiliate stations themselves that own and operation the OTA production.

I'm not sure you are clear in what you are trying to say.

From what I am able to piece together, you are trying to say the NATIONAL broadcast for Fox, ABC, etc. are going to the subscriber model, but the local affiliates in each city will still be ota (the affiliates broadcast the national feed or local programming).

Just so we can continue, is that what you are saying?

Also, the govt is bending over backwards to supply internet for everyone. You best believe they won't let those in need lose their big 4 nationals on ota tv.

I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.



That should be clear. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, if that's not clear.

(11-11-2015 11:35 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Cable and satellite companies pay carriage fees to the local ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS stations in order to show their content. Those stations are actually the most popular stations on cable and they get paid. In the old days they did not get paid, but it changed about 10 years ago.

The *stations* get paid a fee by the distribution networks, to carry their signal on the network.

(11-12-2015 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The traditional networks have multiple streams. They get ad revenue, limited carriage fees, they are selling online as pay to view (Apple and Google stores), selling to subscribers (multiple networks have ownership stake in Hulu, CBS has their own service), and then later selling to Netflix and Amazon in addition to the DVD sales. They are much more often producing their content so they get money all along the stream, plus export sales.

As for the idea that consumers without cable or satellite cannot afford the products being advertised, that's silly. McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Miller Lite are the very description of affordable consumer products.

And they can get more money by taking their content off OTA.

Oh no, that would be you cord cutter's worst nightmare!

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 09:43 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sorry for confusion. I didn't mean to imply that OTA was going away entirely or that existing stations would be shutting down operations.

I think, exactly like you said, OTA is going to be mostly old shows and old movies and some stations (maybe most) will still produce local news and perhaps local high school/minor league sports. That's the kind of content that the stations are going to be able to produce, on their own (without huge bankrolls).

FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are eventually going to stop providing national content to these stations, and the stations will cease to be affiliated with these productions.

Those productions can get more money by having their content distributed on cable, satellite, internet, etc. than by broadcasting it OTA.

I'm not sure I follow you. Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are already on cable/sat. There is a cap of about 90m homes they can reach that way. The only way to reach the other 20-30m is over-the-air.

If they go strictly cable/sat, they cut out about 1/3 of the homes they reach with their ad dollars (advertising revenue shrinks). Plus, I doubt the govt would allow them to leave that 20-30m people in the dark.

I get satellite tv and enjoy the channels. I get my locals and their sub-channels through rabbit ears. I can tell you that ALL the channels (cable, sat or ota) run the same commercials from the same companies. All the channels look and feel the same.

If money only came from advertising, you would be correct.

My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.

The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

The government no more cares that everyone with an antenna be able to watch Family Guy than they care that ESPN does not have an OTA signal.

Hopefully it's clear that there is a distinction between the national content that Fox, ABC, etc. produce, and then give to their affiliate stations to broadcast OTA, and those affiliate stations themselves that own and operation the OTA production.

I'm not sure you are clear in what you are trying to say.

From what I am able to piece together, you are trying to say the NATIONAL broadcast for Fox, ABC, etc. are going to the subscriber model, but the local affiliates in each city will still be ota (the affiliates broadcast the national feed or local programming).

Just so we can continue, is that what you are saying?

Also, the govt is bending over backwards to supply internet for everyone. You best believe they won't let those in need lose their big 4 nationals on ota tv.

I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.[color=#000000]



That should be clear. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, if that's not clear.

I will try one more time...

It doesn't matter whether or not the the content from i would no longer be available to the stations in ii. The only thing that matters is that the content from i is available ota.

1) I believe the four (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) Nationals already own the ota station affiliates in the biggest American cities. They essentially get the subscriber fees for those affiliate channels already.

2) The remainder (and majority) of the ota channel affiliates in all the other cities have a percentage of their subscriber fees go to the big Four national content providers (it is negotiated with each regional affiliate). After all, these stations show the Nationals programming, but also create and produce their own.



That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.

Its conceivable that we may. However, the affiliate OTA relationship with a network provides mutually beneficial financial advantages to both sides, and so long as it does, it will continue.

The explicit suggestion of the path to get there ... to the point where the national networks no longer provide content to OTA stations in return for getting to sell national advertising for a share of the ad slots of that programming, because not doing so would provide them with more revenue ... omitted any explanation of why not having affiliates would provide the national networks with more revenue.

After all, it's additional revenue sources (that is, both advertising and their share of affiliate cable carriage fees) that does not increase their program production / acquisition costs, and the transaction costs are easily covered by a small fraction of the additional revenue provided.

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

This is a key point. 30m people that represent a possible revenue source due to affiliate for whom the OTA advertising revenue is extra income. Plus advertising revenue through affiliate carriage on cable which would be lost if the affiliate relationship was not in place.

It's not enough to say that this is not their main source of revenue, what is necessary is showing how it is more money if they turn down this extra money.

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 09:43 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I'm not sure I follow you. Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC are already on cable/sat. There is a cap of about 90m homes they can reach that way. The only way to reach the other 20-30m is over-the-air.

If they go strictly cable/sat, they cut out about 1/3 of the homes they reach with their ad dollars (advertising revenue shrinks). Plus, I doubt the govt would allow them to leave that 20-30m people in the dark.

I get satellite tv and enjoy the channels. I get my locals and their sub-channels through rabbit ears. I can tell you that ALL the channels (cable, sat or ota) run the same commercials from the same companies. All the channels look and feel the same.

If money only came from advertising, you would be correct.

My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.

The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

The government no more cares that everyone with an antenna be able to watch Family Guy than they care that ESPN does not have an OTA signal.

Hopefully it's clear that there is a distinction between the national content that Fox, ABC, etc. produce, and then give to their affiliate stations to broadcast OTA, and those affiliate stations themselves that own and operation the OTA production.

I'm not sure you are clear in what you are trying to say.

From what I am able to piece together, you are trying to say the NATIONAL broadcast for Fox, ABC, etc. are going to the subscriber model, but the local affiliates in each city will still be ota (the affiliates broadcast the national feed or local programming).

Just so we can continue, is that what you are saying?

Also, the govt is bending over backwards to supply internet for everyone. You best believe they won't let those in need lose their big 4 nationals on ota tv.

I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.[color=#000000]



That should be clear. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, if that's not clear.

I will try one more time...

It doesn't matter whether or not the the content from i would no longer be available to the stations in ii. The only thing that matters is that the content from i is available ota.

1) I believe the four (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) Nationals already own the ota station affiliates in the biggest American cities. They essentially get the subscriber fees for those affiliate channels already.

2) The remainder (and majority) of the ota channel affiliates in all the other cities have a percentage of their subscriber fees go to the big Four national content providers (it is negotiated with each regional affiliate). After all, these stations show the Nationals programming, but also create and produce their own.



That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

1) You are partly correct in your claim that the national brands do own some of the stations themselves.

In Mpls/StPaul, the CBS and FOX stations are owned by the national brand. The NBC and ABC stations are not.


I don't think that has much of an affect on my prediction. The stations that are owned by the national brands could easily be sold to broadcasting companies. The broadcasting companies that own the Mpls/STP stations affiliated with NBC and ABC are Hubbard and TENGA. I'm sure there are other companies throughout the country that would be interested in buying the stations.


2) But the point is that the national brands could just deal directly with the cable/sat/etc. companies to distribute their content (Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.) and get much higher carriage fees from those distributor companies, than the fractional fee they may get from the stations. And by the way, the carriage fee the stations get may be a smaller fee than cable channels get. (don't know)

In that scenario, your cable channel package would just have a channel for FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS, instead of carrying the signal of the local affiliate station. It wouldn't have local news/sports, just national news, and so on.



As I've said, I don't think the stations would go away just because they didn't have that national content anymore. So the government would have no more interest in trying to force that national content to remain on the stations than it would have trying to force ESPN, for example, to have its content carried on stations.

(11-12-2015 11:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.

Its conceivable that we may. However, the affiliate OTA relationship with a network provides mutually beneficial financial advantages to both sides, and so long as it does, it will continue.

The explicit suggestion of the path to get there ... to the point where the national networks no longer provide content to OTA stations in return for getting to sell national advertising for a share of the ad slots of that programming, because not doing so would provide them with more revenue ... omitted any explanation of why not having affiliates would provide the national networks with more revenue.

After all, it's additional revenue sources (that is, both advertising and their share of affiliate cable carriage fees) that does not increase their program production / acquisition costs, and the transaction costs are easily covered by a small fraction of the additional revenue provided.

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

This is a key point. 30m people that represent a possible revenue source due to affiliate for whom the OTA advertising revenue is extra income. Plus advertising revenue through affiliate carriage on cable which would be lost if the affiliate relationship was not in place.

It's not enough to say that this is not their main source of revenue, what is necessary is showing how it is more money if they turn down this extra money.

Obviously it's beneficial for the stations. So what?

If the national productions can get more money by going directly to cable/sat/etc. companies, there's no reason they won't explore that.

I've already explained in previous posts why it could provide more revenue. Short answer: carriage fees are worth more than advertising revenue.

(11-13-2015 11:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If money only came from advertising, you would be correct.

My point is that Fox, ABC, etc. can get more money, even though they're reaching less viewers, because of the carriage fees that traditional distributors pay to channels, per subscriber.

The government wouldn't care. Because the OTA stations wouldn't be going away. People would still get their signals with antennas.

The government no more cares that everyone with an antenna be able to watch Family Guy than they care that ESPN does not have an OTA signal.

Hopefully it's clear that there is a distinction between the national content that Fox, ABC, etc. produce, and then give to their affiliate stations to broadcast OTA, and those affiliate stations themselves that own and operation the OTA production.

I'm not sure you are clear in what you are trying to say.

From what I am able to piece together, you are trying to say the NATIONAL broadcast for Fox, ABC, etc. are going to the subscriber model, but the local affiliates in each city will still be ota (the affiliates broadcast the national feed or local programming).

Just so we can continue, is that what you are saying?

Also, the govt is bending over backwards to supply internet for everyone. You best believe they won't let those in need lose their big 4 nationals on ota tv.

I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.[color=#000000]



That should be clear. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, if that's not clear.

I will try one more time...

It doesn't matter whether or not the the content from i would no longer be available to the stations in ii. The only thing that matters is that the content from i is available ota.

1) I believe the four (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) Nationals already own the ota station affiliates in the biggest American cities. They essentially get the subscriber fees for those affiliate channels already.

2) The remainder (and majority) of the ota channel affiliates in all the other cities have a percentage of their subscriber fees go to the big Four national content providers (it is negotiated with each regional affiliate). After all, these stations show the Nationals programming, but also create and produce their own.



That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

1) You are partly correct in your claim that the national brands do own some of the stations themselves.

In Mpls/StPaul, the CBS and FOX stations are owned by the national brand. The NBC and ABC stations are not.


I don't think that has much of an affect on my prediction. The stations that are owned by the national brands could easily be sold to broadcasting companies. The broadcasting companies that own the Mpls/STP stations affiliated with NBC and ABC are Hubbard and TENGA. I'm sure there are other companies throughout the country that would be interested in buying the stations.


2) But the point is that the national brands could just deal directly with the cable/sat/etc. companies to distribute their content (Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.) and get much higher carriage fees from those distributor companies, than the fractional fee they may get from the stations. And by the way, the carriage fee the stations get may be a smaller fee than cable channels get. (don't know)

In that scenario, your cable channel package would just have a channel for FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS, instead of carrying the signal of the local affiliate station. It wouldn't have local news/sports, just national news, and so on.



As I've said, I don't think the stations would go away just because they didn't have that national content anymore. So the government would have no more interest in trying to force that national content to remain on the stations than it would have trying to force ESPN, for example, to have its content carried on stations.

1) I said they owned the ota affiliates in the largest US cities. Not Minn/St Paul.

2) We shall see. I don't see where anything you are saying will happen.

The Big 4 are already raking in the big subscriber fees.

The subscriber fees the Big 4 owned ota affiliates get is the same as non-owned ota affiliates. They broadcast the same shows prime time. Local news would outdraw a national broadcast of any show in the news hour time frame (that would be local programming early am as people get ready for work, 6pm and 11pm).

I believe the Big 4 already take around 50% of the subsciber fees that non-owned ota affiliates get. The problem becomes margin when you have to develop infrastructure if the Big 4 take over all the ota broadcasting.

Take 50% from the non-owned ota affiliates for shows you already put out... or try and get the other 50% and have to build out your infrastructure.

(11-13-2015 01:50 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 11:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:36 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I'm not sure you are clear in what you are trying to say.

From what I am able to piece together, you are trying to say the NATIONAL broadcast for Fox, ABC, etc. are going to the subscriber model, but the local affiliates in each city will still be ota (the affiliates broadcast the national feed or local programming).

Just so we can continue, is that what you are saying?

Also, the govt is bending over backwards to supply internet for everyone. You best believe they won't let those in need lose their big 4 nationals on ota tv.

I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.[color=#000000]



That should be clear. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, if that's not clear.

I will try one more time...

It doesn't matter whether or not the the content from i would no longer be available to the stations in ii. The only thing that matters is that the content from i is available ota.

1) I believe the four (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) Nationals already own the ota station affiliates in the biggest American cities. They essentially get the subscriber fees for those affiliate channels already.

2) The remainder (and majority) of the ota channel affiliates in all the other cities have a percentage of their subscriber fees go to the big Four national content providers (it is negotiated with each regional affiliate). After all, these stations show the Nationals programming, but also create and produce their own.



That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

1) You are partly correct in your claim that the national brands do own some of the stations themselves.

In Mpls/StPaul, the CBS and FOX stations are owned by the national brand. The NBC and ABC stations are not.


I don't think that has much of an affect on my prediction. The stations that are owned by the national brands could easily be sold to broadcasting companies. The broadcasting companies that own the Mpls/STP stations affiliated with NBC and ABC are Hubbard and TENGA. I'm sure there are other companies throughout the country that would be interested in buying the stations.


2) But the point is that the national brands could just deal directly with the cable/sat/etc. companies to distribute their content (Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.) and get much higher carriage fees from those distributor companies, than the fractional fee they may get from the stations. And by the way, the carriage fee the stations get may be a smaller fee than cable channels get. (don't know)

In that scenario, your cable channel package would just have a channel for FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS, instead of carrying the signal of the local affiliate station. It wouldn't have local news/sports, just national news, and so on.



As I've said, I don't think the stations would go away just because they didn't have that national content anymore. So the government would have no more interest in trying to force that national content to remain on the stations than it would have trying to force ESPN, for example, to have its content carried on stations.

1) I said they owned the ota affiliates in the largest US cities. Not Minn/St Paul.

2) We shall see. I don't see where anything you are saying will happen.

The Big 4 are already raking in the big subscriber fees.

The subscriber fees the Big 4 owned ota affiliates get is the same as non-owned ota affiliates. They broadcast the same shows prime time. Local news would outdraw a national broadcast of any show in the news hour time frame (that would be local programming early am as people get ready for work, 6pm and 11pm).

I believe the Big 4 already take around 50% of the subsciber fees that non-owned ota affiliates get. The problem becomes margin when you have to develop infrastructure if the Big 4 take over all the ota broadcasting.

Take 50% from the non-owned ota affiliates for shows you already put out... or try and get the other 50% and have to build out your infrastructure.

1) Irrelevant. The point has been verified, the national brands do own some of the stations around the country.

My counter-point still stands: it wouldn't be hard for those stations to be sold or, at least, spun off.


2) There's no reason to think a national brand owned station gets any different of a carriage fee than an affiliated station. What we don't know is: i) how station carriage fees compare to carriage fees for national cable channels (my guess is smaller, perhaps much smaller) and ii) how much of the fee that affiliated stations get must be then kicked up to the national company (it might be none ... the station might just pay a monthly fee for the national content).



3) In reading your last sentences, you clearly missed the point. Not only that, you went entirely in the other direction.

National brands don't need to build any infrastructure. They don't need to buy more stations.

All they have to do is deal directly with companies like Comcast, DirecTV, etc. Those companies will do all the distributing for them.


If anything, national companies will sell the stations they do own.

(11-13-2015 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 01:50 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 11:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm trying to get you to realize two completely different things.

i) national content, branded under FOX, ABC, etc. examples: Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.

These are big money productions, backed by the national brands. Those brands then give that content to affiliate stations for broadcast.


ii) OTA stations. Examples: KARE, KSTP, WCCO (Minneapolis/St Paul stations) These stations are specific to a TV market. They are (usually, but not always) affiliated with a national brand of content (like FOX, ABC, etc.)

They also produce their own content, like the local news, coverage of local high school sports, etc. Sometimes they show old shows or old movies (usually late at night)


I'm saying that we could see, sometime in our lifetime, that the content from i) would no longer be distributed to the stations in ii).

That doesn't mean those stations would cease to exist.[color=#000000]



That should be clear. I'm not sure what else I can tell you, if that's not clear.

I will try one more time...

It doesn't matter whether or not the the content from i would no longer be available to the stations in ii. The only thing that matters is that the content from i is available ota.

1) I believe the four (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) Nationals already own the ota station affiliates in the biggest American cities. They essentially get the subscriber fees for those affiliate channels already.

2) The remainder (and majority) of the ota channel affiliates in all the other cities have a percentage of their subscriber fees go to the big Four national content providers (it is negotiated with each regional affiliate). After all, these stations show the Nationals programming, but also create and produce their own.



That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

1) You are partly correct in your claim that the national brands do own some of the stations themselves.

In Mpls/StPaul, the CBS and FOX stations are owned by the national brand. The NBC and ABC stations are not.


I don't think that has much of an affect on my prediction. The stations that are owned by the national brands could easily be sold to broadcasting companies. The broadcasting companies that own the Mpls/STP stations affiliated with NBC and ABC are Hubbard and TENGA. I'm sure there are other companies throughout the country that would be interested in buying the stations.


2) But the point is that the national brands could just deal directly with the cable/sat/etc. companies to distribute their content (Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.) and get much higher carriage fees from those distributor companies, than the fractional fee they may get from the stations. And by the way, the carriage fee the stations get may be a smaller fee than cable channels get. (don't know)

In that scenario, your cable channel package would just have a channel for FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS, instead of carrying the signal of the local affiliate station. It wouldn't have local news/sports, just national news, and so on.



As I've said, I don't think the stations would go away just because they didn't have that national content anymore. So the government would have no more interest in trying to force that national content to remain on the stations than it would have trying to force ESPN, for example, to have its content carried on stations.

1) I said they owned the ota affiliates in the largest US cities. Not Minn/St Paul.

2) We shall see. I don't see where anything you are saying will happen.

The Big 4 are already raking in the big subscriber fees.

The subscriber fees the Big 4 owned ota affiliates get is the same as non-owned ota affiliates. They broadcast the same shows prime time. Local news would outdraw a national broadcast of any show in the news hour time frame (that would be local programming early am as people get ready for work, 6pm and 11pm).

I believe the Big 4 already take around 50% of the subsciber fees that non-owned ota affiliates get. The problem becomes margin when you have to develop infrastructure if the Big 4 take over all the ota broadcasting.

Take 50% from the non-owned ota affiliates for shows you already put out... or try and get the other 50% and have to build out your infrastructure.

1) Irrelevant. The point has been verified, the national brands do own some of the stations around the country.

My counter-point still stands: it wouldn't be hard for those stations to be sold or, at least, spun off.


2) There's no reason to think a national brand owned station gets any different of a carriage fee than an affiliated station. What we don't know is: i) how station carriage fees compare to carriage fees for national cable channels (my guess is smaller, perhaps much smaller) and ii) how much of the fee that affiliated stations get must be then kicked up to the national company (it might be none ... the station might just pay a monthly fee for the national content).



3) In reading your last sentences, you clearly missed the point. Not only that, you went entirely in the other direction.

National brands don't need to build any infrastructure. They don't need to buy more stations.

All they have to do is deal directly with companies like Comcast, DirecTV, etc. Those companies will do all the distributing for them.


If anything, national companies will sell the stations they do own.

1. The business model is already in place. You are talking about losing the local connection to the community altogether. imo, Not gonna happen.

2. It's not hard to Google articles. Subscription fees are in-line, except for comparison to ESPN. The non-owned ota stations kick up on average just under 50% of their subscription fees.

3. Refer to 1.

Your argument is akin to your other statement that advertisers wouldn't buy time on tv for people who use rabbit ears to bring in odd channels, because they were low income... yet the same companies run the same ads (probably at a cheaper rate).

Affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC do not get paid to carry their content unless they happen to have an older affiliate contract that hasn't come up for negotiation in the last five years.

Stations now pay the networks a portion of the rebroadcast fees charged to satellite and cable.

The practice is known as reverse compensation because it reverses the old standard where networks paid affiliates.

In the old days your network affiliation was gold. If the national network was carrying the programs your market wanted to see, you could charge more for ads than your competitors.

Today the affiliate is a much bigger player. For all the hoo-haw about people want to watch ESPN and HBO and whatever is on Netflix, the affiliate is the big player because their local newscasts tend to be heavily viewed. When a line of storms producing potential tornados is 50 miles out and headed your way, the local met is who you want to see, not Weather Channel balancing several different stories, the local met has the only story that matters to you.

ESPN is pretty serious about covering sports but if you are a fan of LSU and live in Louisiana chances are you will get more LSU coverage from your local TV station than ESPN and you can guess within plus minus 120 seconds when that coverage will be on the local station. That local station will also give you stories on other local colleges that will never appear on ESPN as well as what is happening in the high schools.

The local station will let you know the highway department is closing two lanes on your commute, about the creeper teacher arrested in the local school district and let you know about the tax increase the city council wants to put to a vote.

More people would drop Dish if they lost their favorite local affiliate than if they lost ESPN or E! That's why the locals are able to get compensation now the networks are tapping into that because they help provide the lead-in audience to night and morning news shows.

(11-13-2015 03:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC do not get paid to carry their content unless they happen to have an older affiliate contract that hasn't come up for negotiation in the last five years.

Stations now pay the networks a portion of the rebroadcast fees charged to satellite and cable.

The practice is known as reverse compensation because it reverses the old standard where networks paid affiliates.

In the old days your network affiliation was gold. If the national network was carrying the programs your market wanted to see, you could charge more for ads than your competitors.

Today the affiliate is a much bigger player. For all the hoo-haw about people want to watch ESPN and HBO and whatever is on Netflix, the affiliate is the big player because their local newscasts tend to be heavily viewed. When a line of storms producing potential tornados is 50 miles out and headed your way, the local met is who you want to see, not Weather Channel balancing several different stories, the local met has the only story that matters to you.

ESPN is pretty serious about covering sports but if you are a fan of LSU and live in Louisiana chances are you will get more LSU coverage from your local TV station than ESPN and you can guess within plus minus 120 seconds when that coverage will be on the local station. That local station will also give you stories on other local colleges that will never appear on ESPN as well as what is happening in the high schools.

The local station will let you know the highway department is closing two lanes on your commute, about the creeper teacher arrested in the local school district and let you know about the tax increase the city council wants to put to a vote.

More people would drop Dish if they lost their favorite local affiliate than if they lost ESPN or E! That's why the locals are able to get compensation now the networks are tapping into that because they help provide the lead-in audience to night and morning news shows.

All precise reasons why stations not only won't go away, but they provide a public service, truly.

I also don't mean to imply that FOX, ABC, etc. no longer supplying national content to the stations means that the stations wouldn't still be picked up on cable/sat/etc. systems (in the market).

I do believe cable packages would have both. In other words, a channel for FOX (national content) and then a channel for whatever the local station is broadcasting OTA.


I'm just making the claim that, for example, FOX -- the company headquartered in LA, that produces such current content as Family Guy, Bones, MasterChef, MLB on FOX, NFL on FOX, etc. -- would make more revenue from TV if it just directly distributed that content as a stand alone, national cable channel (like ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc.) than by using a model where it gives the content to affiliate stations who then broadcast it OTA.


And the reason why is because carriage fees result in more revenue than advertising.